A smaller than usual turnout for the tournament did not shortchange the forged brackets of depth nor talent. Play began with the Open bracket that featured the most players and the overall greater talent. With ages ranging between late 20s and early 50s, there were guarateed epic clashes in both the doubles and singles brackets of this division. Already loaded with a stellar class of Maryland players, New Yorkers, Billy O’Donnell (The Bus), Mike Schneider, Alvaro Rebaza and Victor LoPierre only added luster in rounding out this division.
Beginning play with singles matches, one opening round play-in game to reach the quaterfinals, Logan Foley faced a game Rebaza. A tight first game saw Rebaza winning, 21-18. Foley then dominated the second game with quick kills and quicker passing shots to even the match, 21-11. The tiebreaker found each player seeking the edge, using their particular strengths to forge ahead. In the end, Foley rallied and won the game, 11-7 and thus the match. The other play-in game to reach the quarterfinals featured Mark Ozgar against LoPierre. Ozgar and LoPierre may not have had much playing time lately, but that does not diminish their individual talents. But in the end, it was Ozgar who dominated this contest, 21-7 21-11.
Match 1 of the quarterfinals had O’Donnell pitted against Foley. With quickness and power, O’Donnell dispatched Foley, 21-8 to take the first game. Foley rebounded in the second game and adjusted to O’Donnell, but did not have enough to finish the job and lost the game and match, 21-16.
Lee Anderson and Josh Ho squared off in a battle of outstanding talent who are very familiar with each other’s game. Their play and styles though are quite different; Anderson at times displays a brash, over the top style while Ho quietly goes about his business like a silent assassin. A clash of styles and tenacity marked the first game. Neither player established dominance, but their skills and familiarity kept the match close. As the score indicates, it was a close game matched in intensity. At 21-19, Anderson triumphed. Ho wasted no time in establishing dominance in the second game, and with precision, silenced Anderson’s play, but not his vocalizations, 21-7. A taut tiebreaker ensued with Ho prevailing, 11-7. Ho would next be tested against The Bus.
O’Donnell wasted no time in dispatching Ho in the first game of their match. At 21-3, it would seem that Ho was destined for an early semifinal exit. But like all good players, adjustments are either made during games or between games. Ho adjusted and forced O’Donnell into another gear that eventually left Ho spent. As hard as he fought, Ho could not totally solve O’Donnell and lost the second game and the match, 21-14. O’Donnell reaches the final and awaits the attrition from the other half of the bracket.
Ozgar, having earlier vanquished LoPierre, earned the right to face Dan Zimet. Zimet is the consummate champion. He will beat you and you end up thanking him for the lesson. Ozgar gave his all but was out matched by the consistency that has come to mark the signature play of Zimet. At 21-7 and 21-13, Zimet secured a semifinal berth to await the winner of Andy Schad and Mike Schneider. Schad is known for his workman like efforts on the court. On the other hand, Schneider plays the game like he is out for a stroll. His long arms seem to pick and flick the ball effortlessly. His gazelle like movements and his trademark darkened eye guards complete the picture of coiled coolness. Schad, with his savvy play, managed to hold off the tenacity of Schneider and prevailed in the first game 21-17. Schneider unleashed a barrage of strokes to quickly even the match, 21-5 and forcing the always intense 11-point tiebreaker. As tiebreakers go, this shortened game was no different from most. Each opponent tried to seize momentum by running off a string of points or at least keep the match close. In the end, Schneider outlasted Schad, 11-8.
Schneider next faced Zimet in what was set up to be a grueling match. The first game did not disappoint as it came down to the wire with Zimet edging Schneider, 21-19. Perhaps the first game intensity sapped Schneider of his magic or buoyed Zimet to another level, but the second game was a picture of dominance by Zimet as he cruised to the final to face O’Donnell, 21-2.
With an overnight rest from Saturday’s intense showdowns, Zimet and O’Donnell faced off early Sunday morning under semi-overcast skies. As highly skilled and accomplished players, these two combatants displayed a raw intensity that resonated from the blistering kills and re-kills that punctuated their many brilliant exchanges. O’Donnell seemed to take great pleasure in extinguishing any fire that Zimet would show. Rallies, long or short, all seem to end the same way, punctuated by an emphatic kill or blistering passing shot. Prevailing 21-12, O’Donnell was primed for finishing off Zimet in two games. Zimet had other ideas. What worked well for O’Donnell in the first game seem to fail him in the second and gave Zimet a huge boost as he served and volleyed his way to a 21-13 win. A somewhat demoralized O’Donnell, perhaps realizing he had his hands full faced a renewed Zimet in the tiebreaker. O’Donnell forged ahead by a couple of points as the two men exchanged side outs in between. Soon though, Zimet found his stroke and like a racehorse down the stretch, distanced himself and glided to an 11-5 win and the championship.
The Open doubles bracket found most of the singles players pairing to form doubles teams. Only two of the singles players did not participate in doubles play, allowing Alan Frank to join his long time partner Dan Zimet, and Eric Anderson teaming with his brother Lee to enter the fray. Ho and Ozgar teamed against Rebaza and Schneider. And in one of the closest 2-game matches of the tournament, Rebaza and Schneider eked out a win 21-20, 21-18 to next face Zimet and Frank in one semifinal.
Over the years, many have had the pleasure of witnessing the dominance of Zimet and Frank as a doubles team. As a keen observer, I can almost predict what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. Playing against these two giants of the game is however another story as many also-rans and finalist will readily attest. With this in mind, Rebaza and Schneider had an uphill battle to start. The Zimet/Frank winning mystique is legendary, and on these home courts, they are almost unbeatable. Thus, by winning 21-12, 21-8, their mystique continued. A place in the finals secured, Zimet and Frank awaited the outcome of LoPierre and O’Donnell v. the Anderson brothers. With their strategy of keeping the ball away from O’Donnell, the Anderson Boys easily coasted to the final, 21-3, 21-11.
The Sunday final was the last scheduled match of the tournament. It had all the drama and anticipation as if there would have been hype. The Anderson Boys were amped, eager and anticipatory, while Zimet and Frank were all business. From the start, there were grunts and screams and the unmistakable sound of hard bodies slamming against concrete. As the match progressed, individually or in multiples, all four players found themselves, at some point being helped from the paved surface. Evidence in the form of blood, sweat and/or skin often remained after such incidents. Many exchanges, seemingly over, were revived by phenomenal digs and gets. And the action was not just limited to the floor, as on numerous occasions, Lee Anderson would defy gravity by hanging endlessly in the air, his body fully extended, as he skillfully returned a deep court ball from the top of the fence extending some ten feet beyond the marked playing surface of the courts. Game one was full of twists and turns as the drama culminated in a 21-20 victory for Zimet and Frank. Perhaps the Andersons knew how close they were to winning game one and rode that momentum to an easy 21-12 second game victory. Having the momentum going into the tiebreaker, the Andersons seemed to feel the surge needed to carry the day. They built an early lead and befuddled Zimet and Frank during their brief stints at the service line. Balls hopped, hooked and slid as if by magic and soon the Andersons had built a 6-0 lead. A side out prompted a Zimet/Frank time out with Zimet to serve after the 60 second break.
Zimet stepped into the service box and began a barrage of aces and service winners that could not be stopped even after the Andersons called two time outs. This was an unbelievable display of focused determination and skill. When Zimet was finally set down, the score was 9-6 in his favor. Visibly demoralized and stunned, the Andersons could only muster one more point for the game, as Zimet and Frank finished them off in convincing fashion. The marathon match ended with appreciative applause from a highly entertained gallery of family, friends and players.
As highly entertaining as the Open division appeared, other brackets provided their fair share of drama and excitement. Two such brackets were the 40+/50+ Doubles and Singles draw consisting of 4 teams and 4 individuals respectively. In singles play, Bruce Cohen faced off against Ray Estevez in one match and yours truly (Peter Peart) played Jack Goldberg. The first game for Cohen and Estevez had an element of drama as Cohen kept it close with powerful servers and steady play. But in the end, Estevez with his unhurried demeanor, picture perfect strokes, and a wicked short serve, pulled away and won, 21-17. In the second game, just returning from vacation, a jet lagged Cohen could only muster 6 points, thus opening the door for Estevez to the finals. In the finals, Estevez would eventually face Peart who dispatched Goldberg, 21-5, 21-2. Against Estevez in the finals, Peart knew he had his hands full. Estevez is a steady player who is calculating and deliberate. Jumping out to a quick lead gave Peart a slight advantage, but he could not build on the lead as Estevez took every advantage in killing the ball while catching and passing Peart in the score. Peart fought hard but fell short in his efforts, 21-15. The second game was just the opposite of the first as Estevez jumped out to an early lead with a steady dose of short serves that either hit the side crotch inches from the short line or spun low along the side wall. These aces and service winners kept Peart off balance for most of the match. By the time Peart mounted a surge, the game, match and championship had slipped away with Estevez closing the door, 21-13.
In a third place game, Cohen defeated Goldberg, 21-10, 21-5.
On the doubles side of the division, Cohen and Estevez teamed up to face Rick Anderson and Roger Berry while Peart teamed with Gerry Kittner to face Alan Frank and Joe Berman. As doubles pairs go, Anderson and Berry are ideally matched. Each man has phenomenal skills that complement one another. Anderson, known for his cat like reflexes up front is also machine like in his execution, while Berry simple does everything well with seeming little or no effort. So facing them, Cohen and Estevez were at an immediate disadvantage as the first game score would show, 21-2. The second game was more of a contest as Cohen and Estevez found cracks and chinks in the armor of Anderson and Berry and disrupted their steady play to make a contest. But in the end, the armor was only scratched as Anderson and Berry prevailed, 21-16. Similar to the team of Anderson and Berry, Frank and Berman create a dynamic of front and back court coverage that leaves very few openings to attack. This is was the daunting prospect facing Kittner and Peart. With the exception of points off serves, Peart and Kittner fell victims to Frank’s well placed ceiling or high arching returns or one of his many kills from his vast arsenal. And what Frank did not finish, Berman would put away from his front court position, showing quickness in killing and passing shots. At 21-7 and 21-5, Kittner and Peart were quietly humbled to have competed with tenacity in some of the brief skirmishes that developed throughout the match.
With Sunday finals set, Anderson and Berry would face off against Frank and Berman for yet another year. Two evenly matched teams usually produce close games as was the case in the first game of the match. Two front court denizens (Anderson and Berman) against two backcourt technicians (Berry and Frank) produced fiery exchanges and lofty play. It was fun to watch Berry and Frank volley from the deep court as shot after shot would nick the front wall/ceiling crotch and come rocketing back along a side wall until one player or the other would be foiled by the perfect shot of its kind. The same scenario was offered up front as the exchanges between Anderson and Berman focused on keeping the ball low, sharp and at wicked angles away from the other player. Through tight exchanges the players fought, seeking the slightest edge with an opportunistic stab and slice to cut a lofty return and end a volley. In the end, Frank and Berman eked out the victory, 21-18. Game two was close at first until Frank and Berman steadily pulled away through serves and well placed shots that elicited both verbal and tacit approval from their opponents. At 21-10, Frank and Berman secured another solid win and the championship.
Continuing in the age bracket divisions, we pick up play within the 60+ Singles and Doubles divisions. In Singles play, three players, Charles Parsons, Rob Gordon and Paul Healy sparred in a round robin format (each player plays the other once). To say these players know each other well is an understatement as they play each other up to four times a week during the outdoor season. Beyond the familiarity, there is a competitive fire in each player. These games may not necessarily be about speed and power, but timing and precision in the shot making can produce some fun rallies. In Gordon’s two matches, he pushed his opponents into 11-point tiebreakers, silencing Parsons 21-19, 13-21 and 11-3 only to be silenced himself by Healy 16-21, 21-11 and 11-2. Against Parsons, Healy had an easy time at 21-6, 21-8 and by virtue of his two wins took the championship.
In Doubles play, entering 60 + age bracket for the first year, Bob Dyke reestablished a previous partnership with Ken Greco. Dyke and Greco combine to make a sharp team. Dyke uses his lankiness and power to keep the ball deep, yet kills with ease from anywhere on the court; while Greco is cut from the mold of the consummate front court player. Overwhelming Gordon and Healy, 21-2, 21-1, landed Dyke and Greco in the finals to await the outcome of Charlie White and Bob Woodward against Joe Pleszkoch and Dave Hinkleman. With Hinkleman plying his sleight of hand craft up front and Pleszkoch steady in the back, White and Woodward managed only 2 points in the first game, and even though showed life in the second, bowed out quietly, 21-12. Game though they may have been, Hinkleman and Pleszkoch was no match for Dyke and Greco, yielding, 21-3, 21-10. Perhaps in another venue, these champions will be put to a more arduous test.
To create fairness and completive atmosphere, tournaments often forge divisions in combining skill level players with older age bracket level players. At local tournament such as this, no one should feel slighted by such a setup. Out of this circumstance, the 60+/B Singles division was born. Young and vastly improved Nathaniel Frank was pitted against the older Bob Woodward and prevailed, 21-6, 21-13. Frank next faced the senior Bob Bardwell, who is known for his steady and serious tenacity on the court punctuated by a wry sense of humor. In a classic battle of age versus youth, with age giving no ground to skill or agility, this shaped up to be a fun match. And the first game did not disappoint in that respect. Youth steadily pummeled the ball and won points at every opportunity to take a commanding lead 19-11. The experience of age in this instance took center stage in befuddling youth as age chipped away at score until it was tied. Riding the momentum, age slammed the door against youth to take the first game, 21-19. Finding youth’s vulnerability, age leaned against his weaknesses and finished the match 21-5, thus entering the finals.
The other half of the bracket had less exaggerated instances of age versus youth. One of the two quarterfinal matches featured an early 20s Joe Green versus the high school senior Sam Worchesky, a classmate of Nathaniel Frank. After splitting the first two games, with Worchesky winning the first, 21-11 and Green taking the second, 21-5, the always intense tiebreaker was set. In testament to Worchesky’s raw talent and growing skills, he kept Green on the ropes in a tight game until Green managed to overpower him, 11-8. Green would next face Dan Ho, who earlier battled converted one-waller, Chris Simeti, 21-8, 21-18. When given the opportunity, Simeti will use is kill shot making abilities to punish an opponent in the front court and this is how he pushed Ho around in their second game. But again, age and experience managed to triumph. Ho next faced Green in a marathon two game match. By all accounts, this was all out war where the older player outpointed the youngster, 21-19, 21-19. So in the battle of age versus youth, age may have one out, but youth served strong notice.
In an agreed to postponed final, a week later, Ho faced off against Bardwell. This match is a renewed rivalry that goes back years, both outdoor and indoor. The first game saw Bardwell race out to an early lead as Ho seemed to be stuck in neutral. Punctuated by their trademark long rallies, the two players pushed each other into the deep court as often as possible. And even though Ho mounted a charge, his efforts fell short in trying to overcoming the lead built by Bardwell, 21-15. The second game began as the first as Bardwell again built an 8-0 lead. Buttressed by side outs, Ho chipped away to reach 7-8, prompting a time out from Bardwell. This proved to be a pivotal move by Bardwell because it seemed to kill whatever fire or momentum Ho began to establish. And even with numerous side outs between them, HO could only manage 3 more points for the rest of the game and match as Bardwell walked away with championship, 21-10. No matter the outcome, it is always both fun and exhausting to watch these two fine players battle each other to the finish.
In a B Doubles division, Simeti and Green teamed to face White and Woodward who appeared earlier in the 60 + division. The other match had Dave Fleming and Jack Goldberg facing Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky. Simeti and Green combined to make quick work of White and Woodward, 21-10, 21-5. And in similar fashion, Frank and Worchesky handled Fleming and Goldberg, 21-5, 21-4. A youthful final saw a game Frank and Worchesky push Simeti and Green by taking the first game, 21-15 but losing the second, 21-10 and forced a tiebreaker. Winning 11-5, Simeti and Green seem to use their relative age difference to overpower the high school seniors.
Another amalgamation found young and old combining to form the 65+/C Doubles division. First time trying the 3-wall game, Peter Clerkin teamed with Amanda Blanchard, a transplant from upstate New York who does not play as regularly as she would like. Tim Virostek and Jadon Ramsing are high schoolers who are relatively new to the game. Showing their greater experience, Clerkin and Blanchard easily handled Virostek and Ramsing to next face Mort Frank and Charles Parsons. In another display of age versus youth, adding vast experience to the aged side, Frank and Parsons edged the mixed pair of Blanchard and Clerkin, 21-13, 21-17. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bracket, Jacob Greenberg and Brendan King, high schoolers, played Eli Zimet and Tony Truman in another rendition of age versus youth. Age trumped youth in a lopsided contest, 21-2 and 21-6, resulting in an all 65+ finals. Mort Frank and Parsons against Truman and Zimet may not have the level of speed and agility accorded to other divisions, but what is lacking in flair is made up for with finesse. Older players still can manipulate the ball with great skill, if it is within reach. The four finalists are equally matched in craftiness and cunning, so it is no surprise that they split the first two games, Frank and Parsons taking the first, 21-15 while Zimet and Truman, balanced the sheet, 21-10 in the second game. The tiebreaker found Zimet and Truman outlasting Parsons and Frank, 11-6.
The C Singles division found many of the young players from the above doubles pairings split to challenge each other. Brendan King defeated Jadon Ramsing, 21-15, 11-21 and 11-7. King would later be out matched by Peter Clerkin, 21-1 and 21-4. Clerkin would await the outcome of the other side of the bracket. Tim Virostek faced off against Jacob Greenberg, with Greenberg prevailing, 21-4 and 21-16. Greenberg next faced Amanda Blanchard who had early advanced by default over Galen Shi. Greenberg was too strong for Blanchard and won easily, 21-1 and 21-8 to face Clerkin in the final. Although new to the three wall arena, Clerkin’s skills proved too much for Greenberg as he prevailed (no score available). How many of us can say that the first time we attempted something that we walked away victorious? Perhaps this will encourage Clerkin to return and others to give 3-wall a try.
In the dropdown bracket, Ramsing outlasted Virostek in a one game consolation match, 31-21.
Though not as large as expected turnout as previous years, this year’s incarnation of the Eastern Regional 3-Wall tournament proved to be fun and fulfilling to both participants and spectators. For many of us, this tournament serves as warm up for the national 3-wall tournament being held in and around Toledo (Maumee), OH, Thursday August 30 to Monday September 3, 2012. For those making the journey, let us follow up our hard work, dedication and positive results with more of the same in Toledo.
On a personal note, I wish to thank my ardent supporters and fans, both of my court play and reporting in this medium. Your positive feedback and encouragement has been invaluable in spurring me on.